Gun Control/2nd AmendmentDiscuss Brady Center Prez -Repeal the Second Amendment? at the General Forum; Originally Posted by cnredd
Whoa whoa whoa!!!!...
24% is HUUUUGE!!!...
A full fourth of all Democrats want to see an ...

A full fourth of all Democrats want to see an amendment repealed???...One that's not only in the original Bill of Rights, but was so important it was placed SECOND in line out of all amendments?!?!?!...
That's downright scary...It's about 37% too much...
AAAAAAANNNNNNND!!!...
The "repealers" sole goal, right now, is to increase their numbers, so 24% today becomes 34% in a few years...and 44% in a few more more years...and then 54% a few years after that...THEN you'll be yelling "We should do it!!!! That's what the majority wants!!!!!"...

Foundit66 convincingly didn't mention the other part

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr wonder

...Here's a link (see page 65) to a survey where 24% of Democrats "Strongly Favor" repealing the 2nd amendment and 15% "Favor Somewhat", that's nearly 40% of Democrats. Only 26% strongly oppose. Do i need to post anything else?...

It's pretty sad over 1/3 of Democrats "Favor Somewhat" or "Strongly Favor" repeal of the 2nd amendment.
But hey it's not "a majority" so we shouldn't mention them i guess. Since the 24% of Ds that STRONGLY oppose repeal will set the others strait. and are the only ones talking about gun-control. right?

__________________Hope is the dream of the waking man.Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.Job 14:6-8

Right there is the data point which disproves wayyyy too many fear-mongering assumptions on this forum.
It is not a majority.

If you look at the overwhelming majority of history for how the 2nd amendment has been interpreted, it did not cover what has been magically rewritten within the last ten years.

For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

The position has "evolved" to now require a majority of Democrats to favor repealing the 2A. Naturally failing to meet the newly minted standard means any concern over losing the 2A is to be dismissed as hysteria. Never mind the editorials by a retired SCOTUS justice and Brett Stephens calling for 2A repeal. Ignore that the criticism from gun grabbers of repeal is not of the objective, stripping away the right to own firearms, but rather of the tactical approach. Why go to the time and effort of amending the Constitution when you can pack the courts with judges eager to rewrite the Constitution with the gun grabber agenda.

Conveniently ignored is the gun grabber motivation for repealing or corrupting the 2A, an individual right is an obstacle to confiscation or reducing legal firearms ownership to a prerogative of only the wealthy and well connected.

Justice Stevens bleats about the SCOTUS majority overturning the sacred understanding of the judiciary that the 2A was not an individual right. How dare the SCOTUS publicly rule against the covert policy of the elite judicial overlords.

The childish criticism of Heller and the conspiracy theory paranoia in Stevens editorial is revealing. If we apply the majority of our history as unbreakable precedent then according to the Court slavery and segregation would be legal, abortion banned and same sex marriage excluded. But wait, precedent is only sacrosanct when it advances the Progressive agenda. Stevens proclaims the NRA a fraud but powerful enough to induce the Court to overturn both precedent and judicial "understanding". There is no boogeyman here.

__________________
The Democrat's strategy for the Trump Presidency is the same one used by Stalin's secret police chief "show me the man and I will show you the crime."

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:

If an unalienable right like those in the Bill of Rights can be repealed, then there is only anarchy to follow. The right to protect yourself from government dictators and criminal elements is like the right to breathe given to every living baby at birth. No governing entity gave that right, and no government entity can remove that right, and I'll be damned if there are still scumbags around who believe the second amendment can be tossed around at their whim.

The "Rights" on the Bill Of Rights grants nothing. It just acknowledges that we have certain rights. Named or not we still have them. We have other rights as well but they are just not named.

How well would it have worked out if rights were not listed in the bill of rights? It wouldn't have worked out well. Because the proof you have a right to say,do or have something is the bill of rights and whats in it. Without it the left could say you don't have a right to guns, the right could say you don't have a right to what ever religion you want, the left could say that you don't have the right to say what ever you want and pretty much anyone in power can say you don't have right to anything they disagree with. Its why our founders listed those rights. Because they knew people in the future would simply claim you don't have a right to those things without the bill of rights as proof. Because how do you determine what rights are and are not retained by the people? Have many supreme court cases that relied only on the 9th amendment been won?

__________________
"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”—Theodore Roosevelt

How well would it have worked out if rights were not listed in the bill of rights? It wouldn't have worked out well. Because the proof you have a right to say,do or have something is the bill of rights and whats in it. Without it the left could say you don't have a right to guns, the right could say you don't have a right to what ever religion you want, the left could say that you don't have the right to say what ever you want and pretty much anyone in power can say you don't have right to anything they disagree with. Its why our founders listed those rights. Because they knew people in the future would simply claim you don't have a right to those things without the bill of rights as proof. Because how do you determine what rights are and are not retained by the people? Have many supreme court cases that relied only on the 9th amendment been won?

I believe is point was that the Bill of Rights did not grant those rights, they just enumerated the rights and placed restrictions on our government that they cannot take those rights away.

Yes, the Bill of Rights was necessary and without it, I am sure that some, if not all of those rights would have been taken by now. But the point is that those rights were not "granted" by the Bill of Rights or by the government as anything "given" or granted can then be taken back by the same entity that gave them.

__________________
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead - Thomas Paine

I believe is point was that the Bill of Rights did not grant those rights, they just enumerated the rights and placed restrictions on our government that they cannot take those rights away.

Yes, the Bill of Rights was necessary and without it, I am sure that some, if not all of those rights would have been taken by now. But the point is that those rights were not "granted" by the Bill of Rights or by the government as anything "given" or granted can then be taken back by the same entity that gave them.

Absolutely. People on the left and other misguided ones still think a dictatorial law is constitutional, even to the extent of describing how a Bill of Rights law can be repealed by some amendment to the Constitution.

Never going to happen in a free America, people. Go live in some "Safe for Snowflakes" country if you don't like it here. You will make America a better place.

I believe is point was that the Bill of Rights did not grant those rights, they just enumerated the rights and placed restrictions on our government that they cannot take those rights away.

Yes, the Bill of Rights was necessary and without it, I am sure that some, if not all of those rights would have been taken by now. But the point is that those rights were not "granted" by the Bill of Rights or by the government as anything "given" or granted can then be taken back by the same entity that gave them.

That we have "inalienable rights" is not in the constitution. It is in the Declaration of Independence.

people often confuse the origins enumerated in the two documents. (I'm not suggesting you do.) It is important to remember they are separate actions, one a declaration of separation based on sound human reasons, the other the framework for a functioning government.

Despite being of two distinctly different purposes, the are connected in their reasoning's. The bill of rights addresses this when it enumerates those in-alienable rights" The operative word is, of course, in alienable.

In-alienable rights of human birth, recognized as natural law are not legislated any more than the laws of physics. We certainly can discuss their discovery, their meaning, their applications, but we cannot change them. The Founders determined, the right of the people to possess the capacity to defend themselves from tyranny, is one of those "laws."

It is my belief, that the second most clearly demonstrates the people's in-alienable right not only to possess and bear arms, but an implied duty to be proficient with them. Hence the reference to the "militia." In a self governing society, it is a precious and sacred a duty as the right, and the duty, to vote.

One wonders how something which is accepted as a right of birth, ie; " in-alienable" could be considered "negotiable."

__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:

The word appearing in the Declaration is "unalienable". Wherever it appears, and whether it is "inalienable" or "unalienable", the word means the same thing, and the Bill of Rights appearing in the Constitution lists some but not all of mankind's unalienable rights.

The word means "governing bodies need to keep their hands off of those rights".

I don't need to read whines from the PC crowd about my use of the word "mankind" either.